king of da 90s kurt blobrains v trent reznor

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: swbsam
Also, NIN is very geek friendly.. Like Tool.. They were once pretty big but now are more nichey, geeks and for some reason meat heads like them... If any of my friends heard NIN on a mix cd they'd say "Still listening to NIN - what is it, 1992 all over again? Wanna borrow some mascara and cry in the corner?" While Nirvana is pretty timeless.

In the end, I'd say Pearl Jam was the most influential band of that era, but Nirvana made rock edgy, cool, and fashionable again

Your friends are dipshits, FYI 😛

 

[Tessi]

Trent of course is the King of the 90's, his music is brilliant and the fans who listen to him actually have a mind to think for themselves not just follow a stupid trend that Kurt set. I've listened to Nirvana, but not much at all in recent years, but NIN just rocks and I just went to a couple shows on the recent tour and it was amazing! I mean how much influence can a depressed guy that over dosed influence anyone now?

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Tessi
I mean how much influence can a depressed guy that over dosed influence anyone now?

I'd have to guess the same way that dead blues and jazz artists influence people decades later?

 

[swbsam]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: swbsam
Also, NIN is very geek friendly.. Like Tool.. They were once pretty big but now are more nichey, geeks and for some reason meat heads like them... If any of my friends heard NIN on a mix cd they'd say "Still listening to NIN - what is it, 1992 all over again? Wanna borrow some mascara and cry in the corner?" While Nirvana is pretty timeless.

In the end, I'd say Pearl Jam was the most influential band of that era, but Nirvana made rock edgy, cool, and fashionable again

Your friends are dipshits, FYI 😛

Ha, they're more into the fiery furnaces, deerhunter, peter bjorn and john, MGMT.. you know, scenester stuff, so I get quite a bit of shit.. i mean, i still like "antichrist superstar" and went to see depeche mode the other day!

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: vi edit
I hate the "it's easy to play" argument. Playing it isn't the hard part. Creating it is.

Creating what? A nirvana song? Easy too. Songs were basic. Nothing special. But there is an inherit beauty in simplicity, so I definately give credit there.

NOT SAYING THEY WERENT GOOD SONGS. Many were great! SLTS was a great song.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Tessi
Trent of course is the King of the 90's, his music is brilliant and the fans who listen to him actually have a mind to think for themselves not just follow a stupid trend that Kurt set. I've listened to Nirvana, but not much at all in recent years, but NIN just rocks and I just went to a couple shows on the recent tour and it was amazing! I mean how much influence can a depressed guy that over dosed influence anyone now?

This post is absolutely RIFE with ignorance. I love both bands, but to pretend there were a bunch of Kurt followers but not Trent followers is just silly. And you're right, Jim Morrison instantly stopped influencing people when he died.

 

[Kirby]

i don't like either, but nirvana wins out on influence.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: vi edit
I hate the "it's easy to play" argument. Playing it isn't the hard part. Creating it is.

Creating what? A nirvana song? Easy too. Songs were basic. Nothing special. But there is an inherit beauty in simplicity, so I definately give credit there.

NOT SAYING THEY WERENT GOOD SONGS. Many were great! SLTS was a great song.

Let's see you create one, then. It's easy, after all.

 

[JohnCU]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: vi edit
I hate the "it's easy to play" argument. Playing it isn't the hard part. Creating it is.

Creating what? A nirvana song? Easy too. Songs were basic. Nothing special. But there is an inherit beauty in simplicity, so I definately give credit there.

NOT SAYING THEY WERENT GOOD SONGS. Many were great! SLTS was a great song.

Let's see you create one, then. It's easy, after all.

tangentialburritoforredoisneato would be the first line in my song. say it fast though.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: vi edit
I hate the "it's easy to play" argument. Playing it isn't the hard part. Creating it is.

Creating what? A nirvana song? Easy too. Songs were basic. Nothing special. But there is an inherit beauty in simplicity, so I definately give credit there.

NOT SAYING THEY WERENT GOOD SONGS. Many were great! SLTS was a great song.

Let's see you create one, then. It's easy, after all.

:music:

Mosquito....*blarg* *blarg* *other incompressible rabble*......as your are......grandma take me home......*rabble* *rabble*.....


YEAH!

:music:







😛

 

[Tessi]

Originally posted by: cheezy321

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: cheezy321

I should go to a rap concert and tell them all they should listen to metallica. That would be AWESOME! :roll:

That would be Hilarious, you'd probably get beat up tho.

 

[evident]

nirvana is the most overrated 90's band period.

 

[Tessi]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: Tessi
I mean how much influence can a depressed guy that over dosed influence anyone now?

I'd have to guess the same way that dead blues and jazz artists influence people decades later?

Let me rephrase that statement. What I mean is that he made an influence then, but I don't see any of the generations under me listening to his work any more. It's a dead influence is what I meant, unlike many other blues, jazz and other rock musicians; that to me were a lot more talented than he was.

Don't get me wrong there are plenty of dead musicians who still greatly influence people musically, I just don't think Kurt's one of them. It was a thing of the past and the few of us who listened then, still do only here or there, maybe. But I'd listen to the Beatles over Nirvana any day of the week.

Basically what Kurt produced had an impression, but it is not something that will ever be popular again and if he were perhaps still alive he could create something amazing, but he is not. End of story. Grunge is dead.

 

[Ns1]

Radio airplay =\= good

creating music for 2 decades and having people gobble up you shit everychance they get = good


Let us not forget all the work Trent has done with the Internet community that NO artist has been able to match, certainly not one as popular as Trent.

Massive use of p2p, free releases of albums, innovative promo campaign (year zero), and the best stage setup ever not including u2

 

[Steve]

Layne Staley > *

 

[cheezy321]

Originally posted by: Tessi

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: Tessi
I mean how much influence can a depressed guy that over dosed influence anyone now?

I'd have to guess the same way that dead blues and jazz artists influence people decades later?

Let me rephrase that statement. What I mean is that he made an influence then, but I don't see any of the generations under me listening to his work any more. It's a dead influence is what I meant, unlike many other blues, jazz and other rock musicians; that to me were a lot more talented than he was.

Don't get me wrong there are plenty of dead musicians who still greatly influence people musically, I just don't think Kurt's one of them. It was a thing of the past and the few of us who listened then, still do only here or there, maybe. But I'd listen to the Beatles over Nirvana any day of the week.

Basically what Kurt produced had an impression, but it is not something that will ever be popular again and if he were perhaps still alive he could create something amazing, but he is not. End of story. Grunge is dead.

I dont know about your town / city, but Nirvana is played on a hell of a lot of radio stations here.

I hear Nirvana consistently on our local classic rock radio station. I guess the radio station considers them classic rock now?

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Tessi
I mean how much influence can a depressed guy that over dosed influence anyone now?

Jimi Hendrix says hi.

I'm willing to bet Trent isn't exactly the most happy well adjusted person on the planet.

The amount of mental illness found in the more influential and talented artists is scary.

 

[Gooberlx2]

I would say Nirvana had a much more substantial impact on the overall music scene.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: vi edit
I hate the "it's easy to play" argument. Playing it isn't the hard part. Creating it is.

Creating what? A nirvana song? Easy too. Songs were basic. Nothing special. But there is an inherit beauty in simplicity, so I definately give credit there.

NOT SAYING THEY WERENT GOOD SONGS. Many were great! SLTS was a great song.

Let's see you create one, then. It's easy, after all.

I'm classically trained on cello and bass viola. I spent several years in both symphony, orchestra, and jazz classes in school where I had to sight read long complicated musical passages in both classical and jazz scenarios. I can play drums, bass, piano, guitar, etc.

Nirvana songs are remedial in structure at best. They're actually VERY easy, after all.

 

[Sureshot324]

Originally posted by: FetusCakeMix
Neither of them, IMO. Kurt Kobain/Nirvana was virtually talentless. And I can't think of any work by NIN/Reznor that I can say I honestly like, and would listen to on a regular basis.

Also depends on the genre of music, as well. I don't dig grunge or..whatever it is Reznor does, so I don't find them very influential at all.

At The Gates however....

Originally posted by: JohnCU
nirvana had what, 3 chords or something?

I have to laugh at the people that are saying death metal bands are more influential than Kurt Cobain. Kurt made those 3 chords sound like nothing anyone had heard before in 1991. At The Gates, while they may be more technically proficient, fit perfectly in their sub-genre: melodic death metal.

Kurt was of course very depressed throughout his career, and he draws from those emotions heavily in his singing and playing. This combined with the intensity of heavy rock is what makes his music so powerful. People say depressing music sucks and they don't listen to music to feel depressed, but this music doesn't make you feel depressed. It makes you feel good, because you connect with the artist and share your pain. In an era of invincible rock gods who showed no weakness, Kurt made it ok for rock stars to bring out these dark emotions through their music.

The other big grunge bands, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, and STP, contributed to this change as well and were more musically complex, but lacked the raw emotion of Nirvana. Radiohead, also considered one of the most influential bands of the 90's, owes a huge debt to Nirvana. Their first hit, Creep, actually sounds very similar.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: vi edit
I hate the "it's easy to play" argument. Playing it isn't the hard part. Creating it is.

Creating what? A nirvana song? Easy too. Songs were basic. Nothing special. But there is an inherit beauty in simplicity, so I definately give credit there.

NOT SAYING THEY WERENT GOOD SONGS. Many were great! SLTS was a great song.

Let's see you create one, then. It's easy, after all.

I'm classically trained on cello and bass viola. I spent several years in both symphony, orchestra, and jazz classes in school where I had to sight read long complicated musical passages in both classical and jazz scenarios. I can play drums, bass, piano, guitar, etc.

Nirvana songs are remedial in structure at best. They're actually VERY easy, after all.

Again, if it was so easy then why 20 years later do they have the radio airplay, popularity, and recognition that they still do that dozens upon dozens of other bands of that era and genre don't? You could argue that Pearl Jam, AIC, and Soundgarden share similar success, but not to the level of Nirvana.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: vi edit
I hate the "it's easy to play" argument. Playing it isn't the hard part. Creating it is.

Creating what? A nirvana song? Easy too. Songs were basic. Nothing special. But there is an inherit beauty in simplicity, so I definately give credit there.

NOT SAYING THEY WERENT GOOD SONGS. Many were great! SLTS was a great song.

Let's see you create one, then. It's easy, after all.

I'm classically trained on cello and bass viola. I spent several years in both symphony, orchestra, and jazz classes in school where I had to sight read long complicated musical passages in both classical and jazz scenarios. I can play drums, bass, piano, guitar, etc.

Nirvana songs are remedial in structure at best. They're actually VERY easy, after all.

Again, if it was so easy then why 20 years later do they have the radio airplay, popularity, and recognition that they still do that dozens upon dozens of other bands of that era and genre don't? You could argue that Pearl Jam, AIC, and Soundgarden share similar success, but not to the level of Nirvana.

Because it has nothing to do with how easy the songs are. As another poster stated, it has to do with people relating to the band and the emotion. By your logic, just focusing on how easy the songs were or weren't, Dream Theater/Meshuggah should be the most famous bands, since they're music is the most difficult. It's actually quite different. They don't have the social popularity that Nirvana had, but they in turn share a cult following of people who can relate to their music, mostly musicians. Because nirvana's stuff was soooo damn easy, it was easy for non musicians to get into. It's called accessibility.

 

[Anubis]

trent

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I'm classically trained on cello and bass viola. I spent several years in both symphony, orchestra, and jazz classes in school where I had to sight read long complicated musical passages in both classical and jazz scenarios. I can play drums, bass, piano, guitar, etc.

Nirvana songs are remedial in structure at best. They're actually VERY easy, after all.

I've played guitar for seventeen years, and naturally learned a few Nirvana songs, and written songs of my own. I stand by my statement.

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Let's see you create one, then. It's easy, after all.

 

[JohnCU]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I'm classically trained on cello and bass viola. I spent several years in both symphony, orchestra, and jazz classes in school where I had to sight read long complicated musical passages in both classical and jazz scenarios. I can play drums, bass, piano, guitar, etc.

Nirvana songs are remedial in structure at best. They're actually VERY easy, after all.

I've played guitar for seventeen years, and naturally learned a few Nirvana songs, and written songs of my own. I stand by my statement.

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Let's see you create one, then. It's easy, after all.

you're actually standing above it.
i'm just sayin.